Why are GM foods so controversial?

You have been reading about GM foods. This BBC page helps you revise and widen your views and arguments. Read it and make notes.

GM crops are created by inserting genes from different plants or even animals into a crop to provide it with special attributes, such as resistance to pesticides. The issue has provoked bitter controversy.

Supporters say that GM crops will increase yields. But opponents argue that they could have unpredictable health risks. Both sides of the argument regularly produce evidence disputing the same point – for example, whether GM crops damage or benefit the environment.

What are the arguments for and against GM crops?

For:
Biotechnology companies and some scientists say that these crops are produced in a more efficient and environmentally-friendly way. They argue that GM crops:

• Are more cost-effective: GM crops have lower costs of production because herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant plants produce higher yields, according to Monsanto, a major GM producer.
• Are safe for human consumption: There is no evidence to suggest that GM foods are unsafe, the British Medical Association said in a 2003 statement. But it has called for more research to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
• Can benefit human health: Crops can be enriched with nutrients to address human health issues, according to the Royal Society, the UK’s science academy.
• Could help the developing world: GM crops could help the developing world by increasing yields of native crops, potentially addressing poverty and hunger.
• Cut down on pesticide and herbicide use: Pesticide use has decreased in GM crop-growing areas, according to a 2002 study by the US-based National Center for Food and Agricultural policy.
• Help preserve natural habitats: Monsanto says that natural ecosystems would be protected from demands for agricultural land as GM crops allow efficient use of existing farm land.
  
  Against:

Green groups, organic farmers and other campaigners point to a range of environmental and health hazards. They argue that GM crops:

• Could increase herbicide and pesticide use: Pesticide and herbicide tolerance could mean that farmers spray their crops more liberally – so increasing the risk of pesticide residue in food.
• Could damage non-GM farmers: Cross-contamination of non-GM fields could affect farmers with GM-free status and destroy their trade, argues Friends of the Earth.
• Have unpredictable health risks: GM crops could be harmful to human health, according to a report by an activist group, Scientists for Global Responsibility. A Food Standards Agency (FSA) study showed that antibiotic-resistant genes can cross from our food to our stomach, possibly making antibiotics ineffective.
• Won't help feed the developed world: The cause of hunger isn’t scarcity of food but the distribution of grain says Oxfam.
• Mainly benefits big biotechnology companies: Companies control patents on seeds so farmers lose control over seed production.
• Could affect biodiversity: Using herbicide on resistant crops could lead to fields being cleared of weeds, removing food sources for wildlife, according to Genewatch.
  

Many people are undecided about GM crops and say that they cannot make up their minds until more tests have been conducted on, for example, the effects of GM crops on human health. Others argue that the debate should be widened beyond GM to look at how we regulate and produce our food and how we tackle health problems through diet.

What do you think?